CITATION: Bedford v. Canada, 2010 ONSC 4264 COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-329807 PD1 DATE: 2010/09/28 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: ) ) TERRI JEAN BEDFORD, AMY ) Alan N. Young, for the Applicant Terri Jean LEBOVITCH AND VALERIE SCOTT ) Bedford Applicants ) Ron Marzel, for the Applicant Amy 2010 ONSC 4264 (CanLII) ) Lebovitch ) Stacey Nichols, for the Applicant Valerie - and - ) Scott ) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ) Michael H. Morris and Gail Sinclair, for the Respondent ) Respondent ) - and - ) ) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO ) Shelley Hallet and Christine Bartlett- Intervener ) Hughes, for the Intervener Attorney General ) of Ontario - and - ) ) THE CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP, ) Robert W. Staley, Derek J. Bell, and Ranjan REAL WOMEN OF CANADA AND THE ) K. Agarwal, for the Intervener the Christian CATHOLIC CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE ) Legal Fellowship, REAL Women of Canada Intervener ) and the Catholic Civil Rights League ) )HEARD: October 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 20 and 26, 2009 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIMEL J.: TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 6 II. THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS ................................................................................... 6 III. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ........................................................................... 8 1. The Applicants ............................................................................................................. 8 2. The Attorney General of Canada (the “Respondent”) ................................................. 9 3. The Attorney General of Ontario (“AG Ontario”)....................................................... 9 4. The Christian Legal Fellowship, REAL Women of Canada, and the Catholic Civil Rights League (“CLF”).............................................................................................. 10 IV. THE ROLE OF THE COURT ...................................................................................... 10 V. THE APPLICANTS........................................................................................................ 11 2010 ONSC 4264 (CanLII) 1. Terri Jean Bedford ..................................................................................................... 11 2. Amy Lebovitch .......................................................................................................... 13 3. Valerie Scott............................................................................................................... 14 VI. STANDING...................................................................................................................... 15 1. Private Interest Standing ............................................................................................ 16 2. Public Interest Standing ............................................................................................. 18 3. Should Ms. Bedford and Ms. Scott be Granted Public Interest Standing? ................ 18 VII. STARE DECISIS ............................................................................................................. 19 VIII. THE EVIDENCE ............................................................................................................ 24 1. Evidence from Prostitutes and Former Prostitutes..................................................... 24 2. Evidence from Police Officers and an Assistant Crown Attorney............................. 25 3. Evidence from Other Lay Witnesses ......................................................................... 26 4. Expert Evidence ......................................................................................................... 26 (A) Prostitution Research and its Limitations......................................................... 26 a. The Role of the Expert .............................................................................. 27 b. Admissibility of Expert Evidence ............................................................. 28 c. Independence of Expert Witnesses............................................................ 30 (B) Areas of Agreement and Disagreement amongst the Experts .......................... 30 (C) Summary of the Applicants’ Expert Evidence ................................................. 31 a. The Nature of Prostitution in Canada........................................................ 31 b. Violence in Prostitution............................................................................. 31 c. Effect of the Impugned Provisions............................................................ 32 (D) Summary of Respondent’s Expert Evidence.................................................... 33 5. Evidence Contained in Government Debates and Reports ........................................ 34 (A) Early Developments ......................................................................................... 34 (B) The Fraser Report - 1985................................................................................. 35 (C) The Three-Year Review: Synthesis Report - 1989 ........................................... 37 (D) The Calgary/Winnipeg Study on the Victimization of Prostitutes - 1994........ 38 (E) The Federal, Provincial and Territorial Deputy Justice Ministers’ Working Group on Prostitution - 1998............................................................................ 39 (F) House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws - 2006...................................................... 40 2 6. International Evidence ............................................................................................... 44 (A) Respondent’s Witnesses: International Experts ............................................... 45 (B) Applicants’ Reply Witnesses: International Experts........................................ 46 (C) The Netherlands................................................................................................ 47 (D) New Zealand..................................................................................................... 48 (E) Germany ........................................................................................................... 49 (F) Australia ........................................................................................................... 50 (G) Sweden ............................................................................................................. 51 (H) Nevada, United States of America ................................................................... 52 IX. THE CHARTER ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 53 1. General Approach to Charter Analysis ..................................................................... 53 2. Legislative Objectives................................................................................................ 54 (A) Is Morality a Constitutionally Valid Legislative Objective?............................ 54 (B) Canada’s Prostitution Laws: History, Interpretation, Objectives..................... 56 2010 ONSC 4264 (CanLII) a. History of s. 210 - Bawdy-House Provisions ............................................ 58 b. Objective of s. 210 - Bawdy-House Provisions ........................................ 59 c. Interpretation of s. 210 - Bawdy-House Provisions .................................. 61 1) s. 210(1) ........................................................................................... 62 2) s. 210(2)(a) and s. 210(2)(b) ............................................................ 62 3) s. 210(2)(c)....................................................................................... 63 d. History of s. 212(1)(j) - Living on the Avails of Prostitution ................... 63 e. Objective of s. 212(1)(j) - Living on the Avails of Prostitution................ 66 f. Interpretation of s. 212(1)(j) - Living on the Avails of Prostitution.......... 67 g. History of s. 213(1)(c) - Communicating for the Purpose of Prostitution. 70 h. Objective of s. 213(1)(c) - Communicating for the Purpose of Prostitution ................................................................................................................... 71 i. Interpretation of s. 213(1)(c) - Communicating for the Purpose of Prostitution ................................................................................................ 72 X. SECTION 7 OF THE CHARTER.................................................................................. 73 1. Do the Laws Deprive the Applicants of Liberty? ...................................................... 73 2. Do the Laws Deprive the Applicants of Security of the Person?............................... 74 (A) What Level of Causality is Required to Find a Threshold Violation of Security of the Person? ................................................................................................... 75 (B) What is the Harm Faced by Prostitutes in Canada? ......................................... 77 a. Can the Harm Faced by Prostitutes in Canada be Reduced?..................... 79 b. Government Reports.................................................................................. 79 c. Expert Evidence......................................................................................... 80 1) The Applicants’ Experts................................................................... 80 2) The Respondent’s Experts